In some sense, the outrage about according a degree of official status to Shariah in a Western country should come as no surprise. No legal system has ever had worse press. To many, the word "Shariah" conjures horrors of hands cut off, adulterers stoned and women oppressed. By contrast, who today remembers that the much-loved English common law called for execution as punishment for hundreds of crimes, including theft of any object worth five shillings or more?

How many know that until the 18th century, the laws of most European countries authorized torture as an official component of the criminal-justice system? As for sexism, the common law long denied married women any property rights or indeed legal personality apart from their husbands. When the British applied their law to Muslims in place of Shariah, as they did in some colonies, the result was to strip married women of the property that Islamic law had always granted them — hardly progress toward equality of the sexes.

In fact, for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world. Today, when we invoke the harsh punishments prescribed by Shariah for a handful of offenses, we rarely acknowledge the high standards of proof necessary for their implementation.

Before an adultery conviction can typically be obtained, for example, the accused must confess four times or four adult male witnesses of good character must testify that they directly observed the sex act. The extremes of our own legal system — like life sentences for relatively minor drug crimes, in some cases — are routinely ignored. We neglect to mention the recent vintage of our tentative improvements in family law. It sometimes seems as if we need Shariah as Westerners have long needed Islam: as a canvas on which to project our ideas of the horrible, and as a foil to make us look good.

In the Muslim world, on the other hand, the reputation of Shariah has undergone an extraordinary revival in recent years. A century ago, forward-looking Muslims thought of Shariah as outdated, in need of reform or maybe abandonment. Today, 66 percent of Egyptians, 60 percent of Pakistanis and 54 percent of Jordanians say that Shariah should be the only source of legislation in their countries. Islamist political parties, like those associated with the transnational Muslim Brotherhood, make the adoption of Shariah the most prominent plank in their political platforms. And the message resonates. Wherever Islamists have been allowed to run for office in Arabic-speaking countries, they have tended to win almost as many seats as the governments have let them contest.

The Islamist movement in its various incarnations — from moderate to radical — is easily the fastest growing and most vital in the Muslim world; the return to Shariah is its calling card.

.

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: Geneva ]

But with persecution, aggression, enslavement and disenfranchisement by imperialism, and with native democratic and socialist movements crushed by complicity between imperialism and their own ruling classes, the people of these countries desperately return to darkest dead-end religious traditions - the only "culture" that imperialism will allow.

The same phenomenon can be seen, ironically, in the United States itself.

An interesting note that the author of the posted article doesn't really get into and unionist and martin hint at is the mix of Shariah and the state.

Doesn't Shahadah kind of forbid hierarchal government? If none is worthy of worship except god then that would kind of kill the principle of statehood, no?

So when state leaders campaign on a platform of Shariah law aren't they de-contextualizing Islam?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:
Doesn't Shariah come from the Sunnah and not the Qur'an?

Doesn't Shahadah kind of forbid hierarchal government? If none is worthy of worship except god then that would kind of kill the principle of statehood, no?

---

Only if you worship the state! I don't see how a prohibition on worshiping anyone or anything but God would preclude democratic (as opposed to "hierarchical") government.

[ 16 March 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:
What's a democratic government? I've never seen one before.

---

My point was that the prohibition wouldn't preclude democratic government. I didn't claim to have seen one!

[ 16 March 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

Whether under the USSR or the West's sphere of influence, they have only seen corrupt dictatorial regimes where corruption is part of the system.

When you have to bribe a municipal officer o get a birth certificate rather than se your file "lost", when you have to have a relative within or pay someone to get a job, when you have to pay a bribery to the driving examiner to get your driver's license otherwise you will have to undergo the exam six or seven more times...

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Just sexism! IMV, I would rather have corruption present in my life, rather than misogyny/sexism.

---

Amen!

Sharia and Imams are about right wing stuff, what you see is what you get. Unlike pseudo-progressive hypocrites!

Now I challenge you, unionist, to show one case of one single imam who was convicted of bribery or corruption.

Imams may incarnate any evil you can think of. But corruption, No. Hence the unparaleled popularity of Hamas, Hizbollah etc..

Cultivate yourselves, folks, instead of specializing in snarking and jumping at the word Islam or Sharia as your masters in the msm mesmerized you to do so.

No Muslim woman is called by her husband's name, by the way! Because they have never been men's properties, like elsewhere.

I hope you, unionist and the other one who talks about sexism, I hope you had come up with some thoughts as to what attracts today's muslims towards thinking Sharia is a good alternative.

I myself do not give a duck about Sharia, I just tried to give my view, met only with your few words snarking. Get over your ignorance, hate and hypocrisy, both of you.

[ 16 March 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by adam stratton:
Most people in Muslim countries find in Sharia the sole available shelter from corruption...

When you have to bribe a municipal officer o get a birth certificate rather than se your file "lost"... You get desparate for a system where corruption is not tolerated.

---

Those who might think about taking shelter under Sharia obviously haven't had a chance to live under a sharia-based government.

Corruption in Iran at all levels are so high that people now consider the old Shah officials as saints comparing to Iranian clerics regarding financial, social and political corruption.

And don't let me start about Saudi Arabia!

quote:

---

I hope you, unionist and the other one who talks about sexism, I hope you had come up with some thoughts as to what attracts today's muslims towards thinking Sharia is a good alternative.

---

[ 16 March 2008: Message edited by: sanizadeh ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:
Doesn't Shariah come from the Sunnah and not the Qur'an?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by adam stratton:

Now I challenge you, unionist, to show one case of one single imam who was convicted of bribery or corruption.

---

As far as Iran (as the main sharia-based government today) is concerned, it is far easier to give a list of those clerics who are NOT corrupted!

quote:

---

Corruption in Iran at all levels are so high that people now consider the old Shah officials as saints comparing to Iranian clerics regarding financial, social and political corruption.

---

[ 16 March 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
I dare not argue with your experience, Sanizadeh, but would that sainthood include SAVAK tortioners and assassins?

---

The total estimate of those killed by SAVAK in 20 years are now estimated to be between 2000-3000, most of them died during armed fighting. Few prisoners were actually executed in jail.

In comparison, during only one week (the infamous September 88 massacre), between 3000-4000 prisoners were executed in Iran. None of them had been sentenced to death. They all had jail terms. However, based on an order came from Ayatollah Khomeini they were all executed. This resulted in the protest and eventually resignation (or removal) of Khomeini's official heir designate, Ayatollah Montazeri. Thousands more were executed during other periods or during armed fighting.

Most of the revolutionary leaders spent time in SAVAK jail and managed to get out. The revolutionary regime practically wiped out any potential threat.

As for assassination, the Iranian regime has carried out several high profile assassinations in the US and Europe, as well as many inside Iran, including murder of a former health minister in 1988, a former labour minister and top opposition leader in 1997, as well as several intellectuals and writers in what was later called "Chain murders". I am not aware of any assassination of this type by the former regime.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Geneva:
thread drift, no?

---

quote:

---

In fact, for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world. Today, when we invoke the harsh punishments prescribed by Shariah for a handful of offenses, we rarely acknowledge the high standards of proof necessary for their implementation.

---

Could you show a case where an official of Hizbollah or Hamas was accused or convicted of bribery.

For these are the systems that Arab Muslims are looking at. Not Iran, not Saudi Arabia.

I am sure you have not read my first post where I gave examples of corruption. For if you had, you would not indulge in examples of assassinations etc.. I was talking bakshish, pot=de-vin, bribery, rashwa, do you understand any of these words, by the way.

quote:

---

In response to the above quote in your main post, I should say it was probably a fairly modern code of law for its time, but only until maybe 1300s or 1400s. Not, as the above quote claims, for "most of its history". Since then it has been stuck in time. -sanizadeh

---

Stuck in time? Your information, Sanizadeh, may apply to Iran. You have no authority to speak for Morroco, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt and other Arab countries because you obviously have no clue.

The Personal Status Code of Tunisia, for example is inspired by Sharia, as interpreted in Tunisia by Tunisians, not in Iran by Iranians. Tunisian women enjoy a status that make many Western women envious.

With all due respect, you are a primary example of the mushrooming experts in the West -since Sept. 11- on Islam and on Sharia who first only have partial knowledge and second do not speak one word of Arabic, which is the language of the Qur'an and the Sunna and whatever.. hence relying on translations.

[ 16 March 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by adam stratton:

Could you show a case where an official of Hizbollah or Hamas was accused or convicted of bribery.

For these are the systems that Arab Muslims are looking at. Not Iran, not Saudi Arabia.

I am sure you have not read my first post where I gave examples of corruption. For if you had, you would not indulge in examples of assassinations etc.. I was talking bakshish, pot=de-vin, bribery, rashwa, do you understand any of these words, by the way.

Before you got into your delirium as a zealous and eager native informant ready to "spill the beans", giving examples of this and that, you would have better read what is being talked about here. But again, I should have specified that I am talking about Arab Muslims, as my knowledge of other Muslims is wxtremely limited and as my resources are in Arabic.

---

Adam, there is indeed no question that your knowledge of Muslims and Islam in general is extremely limited. However I don't appreciate being called a "native informant" by someone who himself is not a "native" within this context (Iranian revolution). Check and see how many real "natives" from Iran disagree with me.

As with Hezbollah and Hamas, Neither is responsible for carrying out Sharia as an official code of law. One is not a "government", and the other has been ruling in an extremely limited fashion and in a bloody war situation. Iran was the same between 1980-1988. Such situations provide no indication or proof about how Sharia would work in normal situation. The Iranian situation since 1988 does.

I know why you want to exclude Iran from your examples, but it is because Iran is a prime evidence that breaks your argument, not because Iran is non-Arab. The Sharia rule in Iran and Indonesia and Arab World and Pakistan is the same with only minor differences. Instead of Hamas and Hezbollah, why don't you talk about Sudan and Saudi Arabia, two other countries that implement Sharia in official code of law?

[ 16 March 2008: Message edited by: sanizadeh ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by adam stratton:

Stuck in time? Your information, Sanizadeh, may apply to Iran. You have no authority to speak for Morroco, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt and other Arab countries because you obviously have no clue.

The Personal Status Code of Tunisia, for example is inspired by Sharia, as interpreted in Tunisia by Tunisians, not in Iran by Iranians. Tunisian women enjoy a status that make many Western countries envious.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by adam stratton:

With all due respect, you are a primary example of the mushrooming experts in the West -since Sept. 11- on Islam and on Sharia who first only have partial knowledge and second do not speak one word of Arabic, which is the language of the Qur'an and the Sunna and whatever.. hence relying on translations.

]

---

Really ironic to hear it from someone who calls himself "Adam Stratton". However, I don't need to rely on translation of Quran or Hadith; my Arabic is good enough to read them, and Persian and Arabic are close enough to share a large number of words. My knowledge of Islamic sharia is solid. And as a practicing muslim, I know what I am talking about.

quote:

---

Really? And the headscarf is banned in Tunisia. Could you explain to me what part of Sharia is that?

---

Barred in public institutions. A middle way between the school of thought that says it is a requirement and another that says it is not mentioned in the Qur'an therefore it is not a requirement.

And even if it is totally banned. Tunisian clerics interpret Sharia with progress of time. Tunisians are still Muslims without the headscarf.

Now, where in the Qur'an does it say that the headscarf is a requirement for Muslim women, Sanizadeh?

[ 16 March 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]

quote:

---

With all due respect, you are a primary example of the mushrooming experts in the West -since Sept. 11- on Islam and on Sharia who first only have partial knowledge and second do not speak one word of Arabic, which is the language of the Qur'an and the Sunna and whatever.. hence relying on translations.

---

quote:

---

Really ironic to hear it from someone who calls himself "Adam Stratton". -Sanizadeh

---

These are the type of comments that for instance converts to Islam -not my ca, by the way- hear often from their "fellow" Muslims and it really disappoints them (converts)greatly.

You know, Sanizadeh, that this is akin to questiong that someone named Mohamed Ali Hasan be Canadian? A case of bigotry and ethnocentricity? It is the same with Islam.

In Islam names are not important at all, you should know. Many Muslims think that one has to have a "Muslim" name. Nothing further from the truth.

Now, if I give you my background, how would that advance the discussion ?

[ 16 March 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by adam stratton:

These are the type of comments that for instance converts to Islam -not my ca, by the way- hear often from their "fellow" Muslims and it really disappoints them (converts)greatly.

---

quote:

---

And even if it is totally banned. Tunisian clerics interpret Sharia with progress of time. Tunisians are still Muslims without the headscarf.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by adam stratton:
Now I challenge you, unionist, to show one case of one single imam who was convicted of bribery or corruption.

---

Convicted??

They try themselves!

How about you leave your snarky remarks and childish smart-ass liners and simply say that you are not aware of any Imam who was convicted of demanding or giving bribery.

As I wrote, I am only trying to think the reason Muslims seems to favour Sharia as the opening message indicated. Mind you, I am familiar with Arab societies, not Iran or Pakistan. I wrote that Hizbollah and Hamas are looked up to because they abhor, fight and denounce the corruption that erodes the fabric of society.

quote:

---

Mind you, I am familiar with Arab societies

---

quote:

---

Go home white expert. -Le téléspectateur¸

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by adam stratton:

Your and Sanizadeh's usual rant about Saudi Arabia and Iran (and about anything Islam) aside, could you come up with an original thought as to why Sharia is favoured by so many people. I mean, beside an answer in the line of "because they are Muslims, not enlightened, delusional in the existence of God" and the rst of that crap.

---

Your assumption (that muslims in general favour Sharia) is wrong.

Sharia is favoured by those Muslim societies who have not had a chance to live under it (for a reasonable amount of time) and are deluded to think that Sharia-based government and Islamist leaders are going to be somehow less corrupt than their secular counterparts.

On the other hand, those Muslim societies who have had a chance to live under and observe the corruption from Islamists and Sharia practitioners, are under no such illusion and often least favoured toward Sharia. Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia are examples of societies where Islamists has been ruling under stable situations for years.

In such scenarios, people realize that Muslim clerics and Islamist leaders are as financially corrupt as seculars, and even worse, because they will use religion and faith to justify their actions and to eliminate any opposing voices.

[ 16 March 2008: Message edited by: sanizadeh ]

You have not yet cited the Qur'an as requiring Muslim women to wear hijab. I am waiting!

[ 16 March 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]

quote:

---

If you can't read Arabic to a point that you can fully understand the Qur'an and other holy texts in Islam then you need to find a new tactic or shut the fuck up. -sanizadeh

---

Yes I do read and write Arabic and fluently. Though understanding the Qur'an (with its often tribal words) is very difficult, I am well versed in Arabic to search their meaning.

quote:

---

Originally posted by adam stratton:
How about you leave your snarky remarks and childish smart-ass liners and simply say that you are not aware of any Imam who was convicted of demanding or giving bribery.

---

Oh, all right. I'm not aware of any Imam who was convicted of demanding or giving bribery.

I'm also not aware of any Imam who ever told the truth.

Oh, darn, there I go again.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Listen, adam, I despise and loath religion, especially its self-important practitioners who live off the ignorance of the masses. Please let me express my scorn of them. No fatwas, ok?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:

Unionist shows no partiality in his dislike of religion. He's as anti-Christianity as he is anti-Islam, for example.

---

Don't forget anti-Judaism.

quote:

---

Originally posted by adam stratton:
Sanizadeh,
You have not yet cited the Qur'an as requiring Muslim women to wear hijab. I am waiting!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by adam stratton:
quote:If you can't read Arabic to a point that you can fully understand the Qur'an and other holy texts in Islam then you need to find a new tactic or shut the fuck up. -sanizadeh

Yes I do read and write Arabic and fluently. Though understanding the Qur'an (with its often tribal words) is very difficult, I am well versed in Arabic to search their meaning.

And please keep cool. Vulgar language hardly adds eloquence to your discourse.

---

That quote wasn't from me. Please correct it.

[ 16 March 2008: Message edited by: sanizadeh ]

anyways, that long piece ends with this conclusion:

Can Shariah provide the necessary resources for such a rethinking of the judicial role? In its essence, Shariah aspires to be a law that applies equally to every human, great or small, ruler or ruled. No one is above it, and everyone at all times is bound by it. But the history of Shariah also shows that the ideals of the rule of law cannot be implemented in a vacuum. For that, a state needs actually effective institutions, which must be reinforced by regular practice and by the recognition of actors within the system that they have more to gain by remaining faithful to its dictates than by deviating from them.

Sanizadeh: Please accept my apologies. I quoted you instaed of Le Téléspectateur.
Le Téléspectateur: If you feel that vulgarity makes up for your ignorance, keep on. If one ignores a topic, one gains more respect by keeping away than by filling his her gaps with vulgarities.

-------

Now back to Geneva's latest message:

quote:

---

Nota:
CHANGED LINK AT TOP OF THREAD
TO NY TIMES MAGAZINE FULL-LENGTH VERSION
(previous link was to short Herald Trib Saturday feature);
anyways, that long piece ends with this conclusion:

Can Shariah provide the necessary resources for such a rethinking of the judicial role? In its essence, Shariah aspires to be a law that applies equally to every human, great or small, ruler or ruled. No one is above it, and everyone at all times is bound by it. But the history of Shariah also shows that the ideals of the rule of law cannot be implemented in a vacuum. For that, a state needs actually effective institutions, which must be reinforced by regular practice and by the recognition of actors within the system that they have more to gain by remaining faithful to its dictates than by deviating from them.

The odds of success in the endeavor to deliver the rule of law are never high. Nothing is harder than creating new institutions with the capacity to balance executive dominance — except perhaps avoiding the temptation to overreach once in power. In Iran, the Islamists have discredited their faith among many ordinary people, and a similar process may be under way in Iraq. Still, with all its risks and dangers, the Islamists’ aspiration to renew old ideas of the rule of law while coming to terms with contemporary circumstances is bold and noble — and may represent a path to just and legitimate government in much of the Muslim world.

---

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]

And here you are supporting a misogynist, religious authoritative system of law on a progressive board!

Syed Soharwardy is a Canadian Imam who supports Sharia law:

quote:

---

What Islamic Shari'a requires from both men and women is modest dress. In Catholicism nuns wear modest dress. Islam requires that all women should dress modestly, and attempt to be more pious not just the selected few. Islam wants everyone to be pious, as a means to better society. What is bad about this?

---

What is bad is that women should be able to wear as little or as much as they choose to!

Does this count as a corruption charge in your eyes Adam?

quote:

---

We were discriminated as women and were treated poorly, differently, negatively and adversely by the Directors and Officers of Al-Madinah Calgary Islamic Centre, Islam Supreme Council of Canada (ISCC), Muslim Against Terrorism (MAT), Al-Madinah Dar-Ul-Aloom Ltd and Al-Madinah Calgary Islamic Assembly. In this meeting we were treated diferently from men in the following manner:
• Abusive language uttered towards us;
• Not permitted to ask any questions;
• Danied participation as equal members of the Muslim community;
• Physically and verbally threatened; made to sit in the back of the hall;
• Accused of disrupting and subotaging the proceedings;
• Forced to vacate the pemises;
• Followed-up by obscene and threatening phone calls and letters in the mail.

---

Robina Butt
complained about financial corruption and this is what happened.

Dr. Iftikhar Ahmed complained as well and his home was torched.

quote:

---

That your white opinion on all things Muslim (sorry only Arabic Muslim!) is superior to that of a practising Muslim. Ghislaine

---

Here is an example of a person talking authoritatively apparently without knowing that what she is saying may have no foundation in reality.

1) It seems that you pulled this "adam stratton.. hmm.. must be white" out of the bag of prejudicial assumptions you and Téléspectateur share. (He too made this assumption and I answered him in French, which you master (*).

Since you seem to specialize in pigeon-holing names and exercising prejudicial assumptions, could Mohammed and Osama be Canadian names?

2) Are you able to show me where I wrote about anything superior to another? Obviously you are not, because that only exists in your imagination.

(*) Had you read what has been written prior to jumping in the topic, you wouldn't have duplicated this frivolous remark that only reflects prejudice and does nothing to enhance your or Téléspectateur's credibility.

By the way, Ghislaine, we do not say "Arabic Muslims" we say Arab Muslims. Arabic is the language, Arab is the ethnicity.

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]

quote:

---

1) It seems that you pulled this "adam stratton.. hmm.. must be white" out of the bag of prejudicial assumptions you and Téléspectateur share. (He too made this assumption and I answered him in French, which you master (*).

---

I called you a White expert because you were acting like one. You put down other people's experiential information because it did not corespond with your academic knowledge.

You then tried to position yourself as the leading authority on Arab Islamist movements and Shariah law. Your only support for this is that you have studied Arabic.

You have yet to identify how long you have been studying Arabic, if it is your first language and if you are familiar with Islam outside of booksmarts.

quote:

---

Originally posted by adam stratton:

Here is an example of a person talking authoritatively apparently without knowing that what she is saying may have no foundation in reality.

1) It seems that you pulled this "adam stratton.. hmm.. must be white" out of the bag of prejudicial assumptions you and Téléspectateur share. (He too made this assumption and I answered him in French, which you master (*).

Since you seem to specialize in pigeon-holing names and exercising prejudicial assumptions, could Mohammed and Osama be Canadian names?

2) Are you able to show me where I wrote about anything superior to another? Obviously you are not, because that only exists in your imagination.

(*) Had you read what has been written prior to jumping in the topic, you wouldn't have duplicated this frivolous remark that only reflects prejudice and does nothing to enhance your or Téléspectateur's credibility.

By the way, Ghislaine, we do not say "Arabic Muslims" we say Arab Muslims. Arabic is the language, Arab is the ethnicity.

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]

---

You wanted an example of an (allegedly) corrupt imam (which you claim do not exist!!) and I gave you one from right here in Canada. Do you have any comment on this?

I apologize for making assumptions on your race, I have assumed you had stated you were white previously as other people were making reference it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
Now picture a woman trying to complain against this treatment in a country with less rights for women than Canada. Or a country with no secular legal system.

---

My thesis is that Sharia seems appealing to people in Arab Muslim countries because they are fed up with the ever rampant corruption -as in briberies- under various politico-economical regimes and look up to Hizbollah and Hamas as upholding a legal code that in tehri eyes actually and effectively prohibited corruption, as in bribery: That code is Sharia.

I am not selling Sharia, I am not saying some code is better than the other, I was merely trying to explain a phenomena that to me, seems surprising, which is the least I can say.

That was my thesis, as a comment about the opening of the thread.

Now once you have found one single case of a Hizbollah or Hamas official who was found to be involved in corruption, as in briberies, and was allowed to get away with it, then you have put my thesis in agony. But you did'nt.

What I observe happening in threads that mention Sharia, Islam, or even just religion in general, upon simply looking at these words, some Bablers, in a reaction that looks more spurred by instinct than brain, just pounce. That is what happened in this thread.

quote:

---

Originally posted by adam stratton:
Ghislaine,

My thesis is that Sharia seems appealing to people in Arab Muslim countries because they are fed up with the ever rampant corruption -as in briberies- under various politico-economical regimes and look up to Hizbollah and Hamas as upholding a legal code that in tehri eyes actually and effectively prohibited corruption, as in bribery: That code is Sharia.

I am not selling Sharia, I am not saying some code is better than the other, I was merely trying to explain a phenomena that to me, seems surprising, which is the least I can say.

That was my thesis, as a comment about the opening of the thread.

Now once you have found one single case of a Hizbollah or Hamas official who was found to be involved in corruption, as in briberies, and was allowed to get away with it, then you have put my thesis in agony. But you did'nt.

What I observe happening in threads that mention Sharia, Islam, or even just religion in general, upon simply looking at these words, some Bablers, in a reaction that looks more spurred by instinct than brain, just pounce. That is what happened in this thread.

Only oldgoat took the time to read the link I hape inserted about "dehumanization", thought through and provided a refreshingly welcome input, with which I disagree but that I profundly respect.

---

I "pounced" mainly because of the way you were speaking to sanzideh. I found it very disrespectful, especially as there are very few Muslim voices on babble.

I also would hate to ever see Sharia coming to Canada (thank goodness it didn't happen in Ontario), so I also have an immediately strong reaction when I hear people defending it - especially progressively-minded people.

I think Hamas and Hezbollah's support amoung ordinary people (ie those who want to live in peace with all cultures/religions) is caused mainly by Israel's aggression.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
I never found a post by old goat in this thread.

---

I believe he is referring to the comment in the "Defame Islam, get sued?" thread.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
I believe he is referring to the comment in the "Defame Islam, get sued?" thread.

---

quote:

---

Adam, you say that you are trying to understand why it is that so many Arab Muslims prefer Sharia. I am wondering how you know this and if you can provide links? Also, given that women are 52% of the population but extremely marginalized how did you come to the conclusion taht they prefer this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
One has to really wonder about people who reply in french, to commentary posted in english.

---

quote:

---

One has to really wonder about people who reply in french, to commentary posted in english.

---

I wrote in English, you alluded to my writing as "rambling". I wrote in French you are "wondering".

Keep wondering.

quote:

---

I would be impressed if he responded in Arabic. I guess by using French we are to believe that he is a scholar of languages. Le Téléspectateur

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
I never found a post by old goat in this thread.

---

My apologies. At a time I had two threads open in two screens and I inadvertently put replies -plural- to a thread in the other

-----
Remind:

I notice your keen interest in scanning my replies and going the extra mile to search what I am referring to, what language I use and so on.

As someone whom you put in your "ignore" list, as someone whom you banned from sending you private e-mails, I do not know whether to be flattered or totally disgusted by your inconsistencies and hpocrisy. Do you still support classy women (say, former Bell Exec.) but deny support to, say, women who are victims of patriarchal polygamy ? Are the latter 'phoney' women as opposed to your favourite 'real' ones? Something else?

[ 18 March 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by adam stratton:
Remind:

I notice your keen interest in scanning my replies and going the extra mile to search what I am referring to, what language I use and so on.

As someone whom you put in your "ignore" list, as someone whom you banned from sending you private e-mails, I do not know whether to be flattered or totally disgusted by your inconsistencies and hpocrisy. Do you still support classy women (say, former Bell Exec.) but deny support to, say, women who are victims of patriachal polygamy ?

[ 18 March 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen.

---

[ 18 March 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by adam stratton:

What I am saying, again, is that Hamas and Hizbollah have shown a system of management that is free of financial corruption (as in bribery, embezzlement, officials buying properties abroad, stealing money and putting it in Swiss banks, public servants demanding briberies from citizens for providing an admission to hospital, for preparing a birth certificate etc..)

---

First of all, there is no verifiable account available of corruption among Hamas and Hzbollah officials.

Second, even if the level of corruption is lower, it is because Hezbollah is not in charge of the government as a whole, and Hamas is running a war-torn city-state with minimum resources. What is there to embezzle? You can make that case only If they are put in charge of a country in a stable situation, like most other Arab countries, got their hands on money and resources, and then did not get corrupted.

What kind of checks and balances?

How have they dealt with whistleblowers and opposition?

quote:

---

Could you two just maybe make the extra effort to avoid each other, please? That means no making snarky references to each other's posts, etc. -Michelle

---

quote:

---

Adam, you say that you are trying to understand why it is that so many Arab Muslims prefer Sharia. I am wondering how you know this and if you can provide links? Also, given that women are 52% of the population but extremely marginalized how did you come to the conclusion taht they prefer this? -Ghislaine

---

Here is an extract from the opening of the thread.
Ghislaine, I really wich people would take the time and read what the thread is about, what has been said etc.. instead of dropping in, seeing a word or sentence -usually at the most recent messages- and pounce.

That would make a discussion much more richer and enjoyable.

quote:

---

Today, 66 percent of Egyptians, 60 percent of Pakistanis and 54 percent of Jordanians say that Shariah should be the only source of legislation in their countries. Islamist political parties, like those associated with the transnational Muslim Brotherhood, make the adoption of Shariah the most prominent plank in their political platforms. And the message resonates. Wherever Islamists have been allowed to run for office in Arabic-speaking countries, they have tended to win almost as many seats as the governments have let them contest.

---

quote:

---

Those statistics don't address my concern in regards to how many women were polled at all.

---

They are in response to your question, which was:

quote:

---

I am wondering how you know this and if you can provide links? -Ghislaine

---

As to how many women were polled

1) I did not conduct the poll
2) People with knowledge about today's Arab societies, beyond what one reads in the North American msm, would know that Sharia would have affected both men and women.

While it is more oppressive to women (dependently of the local interpretation, traditions and degree of social development) it is a myth to say that Sharia is a free ride for men on the back of women. Believe me, men and women in these lands have the same aspiration to freedom from oppressive laws than their Western counterparts.

Hence, my seeking an explanation to this phenomenon of preference accorded to Sharia as law.

[ 18 March 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]